Answers to blunt questions -- An E-interview with the IRD's Mark Tooley

I protested  a letter mailed by  the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) to its mailing list because I felt it distorted and misrepresented the up-coming  Hearts on Fire convocation sponsored by the Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN). The event is scheduled to be held at Lake Junaluska Sept. 2-5. 

Several thoughtful conservatives whom I especially respect thought I was overreacting.   I decided to ask the IRD's Mark Tooley who wrote the letter  about some of my concerns, and to do so as directly and bluntly as possible. Although our paths cross only infrequently, I have had a cordial relationship with him for a number of years, and, in a former position, have even asked him for feedback on how he thought his constituency would react to certain issues. He has always treated me well on a personal level, and so I felt confident I could ask my questions directly and honestly. I appreciate his willingness to take the time to respond:   

Your use of language in talking about the Hearts on Fire convocation seems unusual. Instead of a convocation, you consistently refer to it as a "rally" or "jamboree," terms never used by the Reconciling Ministries Network. Why do you use the terms "rally" and "jamboree" to describe what will be a weekend of worship, workshops, and fellowship? Do you use these same terms when the Confessing Movement or other conservative groups have their national conference?

Reconciling and the other groups organizing Hearts on Fire are attempting to overturn United Methodist teachings on marriage and sex. The purpose of Hearts on Fire is to assist in this purpose.  I believe "rally" is a good term to describe the project. 

Neither "rally" nor "jamboree" is a pejorative term of itself.  It is what the rally is attempting to gather support for that makes the event negative or positive.  I do not think it would be unfair to describe the upcoming September conference of the Confessing Movement as a "rally" for United Methodists who subscribe to orthodox Christianity. 

The Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN) calls itself "a national grassroots organization." You call it a "lobby group." This also seems to be a strange term to apply to a church group. Why do you use it? Do you also consider your group, the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), to be a lobby group? Do you refer to yourself this way in your publications?  Aren't you using language in a propandanistic way, rather than objectively?

RMN is lobbying for the United Methodist Church to change its historic position on homosexuality. It does this by endorsing legislation at church conventions and lobbying for that legislation.  That is what lobbying is.  "Lobbying" is a neutral term.  The question is, what is being lobbied for?  It is true that IRD also lobbies for legislation at church conventions.

You also refer to RMN and the conference as "pro-homosexuality." RMN, as I understand it, affirms inclusion and affirmation for people of all sexual orientations -- straight and gay. Why do you consider "pro-homosexuality" a fair descriptions?  Would it be fair to call IRD an anti-homosexuality group?

RMN affirms homosexuality as a divine gift.  It seems not unfair to say that RMN is pro-homosexuality.  IRD supports the current United Methodist Church stance, which is that homosexual behavior is wrong. You could call us "anti-homosexuality."  We prefer to emphasize the positive, which is that God created sex for man and woman within the context of lifelong marriage. 

You say that the convocation or "jamboree" will not honor "Christian values such as chastity and faithfulness." I have never heard anyone associated with RMN do anything but endorse and honor faithfulness. On what basis do you say that the conference will not honor the value of faithfulness?

Clearly RMN has a different understanding of faithfulness than do most United Methodists and orthodox Christians.  Faithfulness, in the orthodox understanding, means upholding the faith of the saints as passed down from the apostles across 2,000 years to the present day. Faithfulness means affirming the authority of God's Word, as found in Scripture, and attempting to live according to it.  I believe our debate is not ultimately about sex but about different understandings of God, revelation, Christ, and human nature.

My wife noticed that you say the convocation or "jamboree" will celebrate "the sexual revolution." This term, she says, has been commonly used to refer to the emergence of feminism, the use of birth control, the employment of women outside the home, and equal pay for women. She asked me to ask you what you mean by the term "sexual revolution," and whether you are opposed to equality for women and birth control.

By "sexual revolution," I refer to the movement that largely started in the 1960's that sought to separate sex from marriage and procreation. The sexual revolution has largely redefined sex as a form of recreation and bonding among consenting adults.  The affirmation of homosexual behavior is part of the sexual revolution.  IRD supports equality for women!  In many ways, it is women who have been victimized by the sexual revolution, which has helped to turn sex into a commodity.  IRD has never addressed the issue of birth control.

Here's the big question: What "wide range of exotic sexual activities" do you suppose will be endorsed at the conference? I have never heard of anything but loving committed relationships endorsed by the RMN. How can you justify using such inflammatory terms? Aren't you grossly exaggerating in order to polarize?

The inclusion of "transgender" issues and of a prominent speaker who has had a sex change operation suggests Hearts on Fire is about more than simply homosexuality.  I have attended RMN-endorsed events and read RMN-endorsed publications that endorsed polyamory.  I do not know if that topic will come up at Hearts on Fire.  The gay community seems to have different and evolving standards about what constitutes "loving committed relationships."  All of these understandings seem to be very different from the Jewish and Christian understanding of marriage, which is celibacy outside of marriage and monogamy within marriage.

How much money has come in in response to this letter?

I do not know yet.  We sent a letter to 100,000 people, and are just now receiving responses.  The letter cost over $20,000, I believe.  My hope is that the letter will pay for itself.

What else would you like us to know about your position on the Hearts on Fire convocation?

Hearts on Fire has aroused more response from United Methodists than any other issue during the nearly 12 years I have worked at IRD.  We started hearing from people about this event well before we had published anything about it.  Many United Methodists have personal memories about their own experiences at Lake Junaluska.  That Lake Junaluska would host an event that openly defies United Methodist and orthodox Christian teaching is therefore deeply upsetting to them.

My thanks to Mark Tooley for his responses to my questions. Be sure to also read IRD's report about Hearts on Fire: True, false, and strange.

Comments

[Dean Snyder]

Let me begin with a quick comment down here, so that I let the interview stand on its own:

I am concerned about Mark's justification of his "exotic sexual activities" comments by saying he heard and read in a RMN meetings and in literature references to "polymory."

I once attended a men's breakfast at a black UM church where the speaker said white people's brains are smaller than black people's. Everybody in the room was clearly embarrassed. I would not use this isolated comment to say you can expect to hear this sort of thing at black church men's meetings.

I once attended a charismatic service where the speaker said disabled people are disabled because they lack the faith to be healed. (More than once, actually.) I would not use this to suggest that this represents the views of charismatic.

I once attended a meeting of a conference caucus affiliated with the Good News Movement where somebody said that certain bishops ought to be rounded-up and shot. I would not use this statement to say that you may well hear violence against bishops advocated at Good News meetings.

I am still having a hard time not seeing Mark's description of the convocation as misrepresentative and distorted for the purpose of fear mongering. Correct me again if I am wrong.

[Revwilly]

Dean,
I'm not sure if you are wrong or not about Mark, but I am sure you are one of the most open-mind, fair people I've come across in some time. You are a good model for all of us regardless of our theological or political positions. I appreciate you very much.

[Stephen]

It is interesting to note the use of language both in the letter and his responses. I have no doubt that Mark is very skilled at crafting these types of statements. Words like instread of "anti-homosexual" he prefers the positive: "pro-family". What we need to realize is that any letter that is crafted is crafted for a specific purpose. When I write a sermon I have a purpose in mind. When we speak we have a purpose in mind. The language of the letter was crafted for a purpose, and by the recent amounts of blogging on both sides that purpose seems to have worked.

[Andy B.]

Dear Dean,
Thank you so much for this open minded and fair interview. Do you see any chance of finding a common language by which we can even talk about the issue? I ask this because to me, it seemed so many of Mark's answers talked right past the actual question you asked, without responding. Is there any way for UMs to even sit at the same table together so we can talk honestly?
Anxious,
Andy B.

[Jay]

Dean, thanks again for your willingness to engage rather than simply attack. And thanks too to Mark for being willing to answer tough questions.

Of course, Mark's responses raised all sorts of additional questions for me. The biggest one is related to his response to the question about the sexual revolution. If I am hearing Mark correctly, I believe I hear him calling for a return to the Augustinian understanding of sexuality which believes that original sin is transmitted through sex and that the only valid reason for sexual activity is procreation (and even then, it is still tainted). The movement away from that theology was actually led by Protestants (in conjunction, I believe, with the introduction of modern contraception) who have moved toward a theology which says that sexuality is a gift of God, but often without explicit biblical reference. While I agree with Mark that the issues at hand between those who are called conserving and those who are called liberal are deeper than the issue of sexuality (in particular, the nature of revelation and interpretation), I also believe that the current battles over sexuality lie in our inability to offer a developed theology of sexuality as a whole.

Returning to the Augustinian norm may be desirable (I personally think not, but that has as much to do with my own frustrations with "Gus" as anything) but when we talk about returning to the traditions handed down by the saints, let's name where those traditions originated from and the full extent of those beliefs.

[Joe]

Dean,

Do you seriously mean to suggest that your wife and (since you chose to ask the question)you believe that IRD has taken any stance against employemnt of women outside the home or equal pay for women? While it seems you are willing to imply his/their unfairness, it seems your carefully worded a "question" to make a similar unfair implication.

[Chris]

Dean, yet another example of why your blog is must-read material. Your sense of fairness and openness is refreshing.

[the_methotaku]

Wow! Dean, you're a whole lot smarter and nicer then I am. It's nice to read Tooley in his own words, though I still think that he's missing the point.

[Revwilly]

Jay,
You need to put your sarcasm on the shelf. Mark was in no way implying a return to the Augustinian view of sexuality. If you want to attack someone's position, don't do it by the back door of veil anger, just come out and say it.

[John]

Maybe I'm slow, but I don't see any sarcasm in Jay's comment.

[Revwilly]

It takes one to know one. It takes one to see it. It's there. Trust me.

[beth]

Dean, thanks for posting another great interview.

[Jay]

Sarcasm? I'm never sarcastic...

Actually, in this case I was serious. As I read Mark, I was struck by his comment which identified the sexual revolution as the movement that "sought to separate sex from marriage and procreation. The theology (which continues to be held in Roman Catholicism) that sexual expression is only appropriate for procreation is rooted in Augustinian theology. I'm not arguing for the sexual revolution (I lived through it and trust me that it really wasn't all that great). What I am asking, or what I would like for Mark to share in a followup is his theology of sexuality. In his response in this article he directly ties together marriage and procreation. So how do we respond to sex between married folks that is non-procreative? Are they engaged in a sinful act?

These are not flippant questions, but serious ones. You see, if we move to the notion of sexuality as a gift from God, then it opens up questions like those being asked by the Reconciling Ministries group. It also raises issues for both sides regarding the limits of sexual expression (and I do believe in limits). Talking about sexuality always raises as many questions as are answered. It's why slogans and generalizations almost always fail when we deal with this part of our lives.

Since I am on a roll and will probably be exiled to the wilds of Saskatchewan, I also think that folks on both sides of this issue talk past one another. On one side you have folks that are dealing with this issue from the perspective of identity. On the other you have folks dealing with the issue of sexuality from the perspective of ethics. We go round and round and round because we are really talking in two different realms, with two different sets of language. Certainly ethics and identity should be connected, but far too often they aren't and we fail to engage as we talk past one another.

[Chris]

Dean,

I ask this question in all seriousness; forgive me if I seem a bit naïve. You remark, “I have never heard of anything but loving committed relationships endorsed by the RMN.” What does “loving committed relationship” means in the context of RMN?

I hear of RMN in relationship to GLBT issues. The B in GLBT being bisexual, a question arises in my mind. Do RMN and similar groups suggest that some persons cannot lead fulfilled lives without having both male and female sexual partners? What does a bisexual loving, committed relationship look like?

[Douglas Asbury]

Thank you, Dean, for this direct and helpful questioning of Mark Tooley.
I was struck by the way he twisted your question about "chastity and faithfulness" so that he avoided the clear implications of his own original reference. The linked terms "chastity and faithfulness" in his letter and your question echo the linked terms "celibacy [in singleness] and fidelity [in marriage]" in the Book of Discipline. Yet in his response to your question, he ignored the word "chastity" and then went off on a completely different tangent with the word "faithfulness," claiming it referred to being true to the historic Christian faith. Anyone who has no particular political agenda can recognize that in his original context, "faithfulness" refers to the "anti-homosexuality" claim that same-sex partners do not have the capacity to be faithful to their partners over the long term. This has been a long standing accusation from the Religious Right against LGBT persons that has been challenged more and more as LGBT partners in long-term relationships have come out over the past few years. Perhaps his awareness of the fundamental untruth of this accusation caused his conscience to guide him away from the "plain sense" of the statement into another more generalized accusation that carries less weight in this specific argument but is a more easily defensible position that applies to his position as a whole.
And, of course, the sexual revolution may have sought to "separate sex from marriage and procreation," but in fact, it was Luther, and after him, the Puritans (believe it or not) that tried to reemphasize the positive value of sexual relations to the loving bonding of the marriage partners, in contrast with the Augustinian-based sense that sex was sinful and needed to be engaged in only as frequently as necessary either to procreate or to "contain lust" (i.e. following Paul's admonition for those who need to marry rather than "to burn" - 1 Cor. 7.9). (It's as though Augustine intentionally ignored the passion of Song of Solomon. I ascribe his doing this to his own unresolved guilt and shame over his libertine ways in his youth. He really loved sex then, and not just for procreation!)
In reading and thinking about responding to this, Roy Cohn came to mind. He was an assistant to Joseph McCarthy and took particular delight in targeting homosexual persons through the House Committee on Unamerican Activities which McCarthy chaired, even though there was evidence Cohn himself was a closeted homosexual person.
Mentioning this, I could be accused of suggesting that Tooley and others in the anti-homosexuality crowd might have a similar agenda for similar reasons, but in fact, I'm not suggesting that. I don't believe that. There are too many proud "ex-gays" in such things as the Transforming Movement to believe that anyone who espouses a conservative viewpoint on this issue would be doing so for reasons similar to Cohn's. (Though it is not beyond the realm of possibility, since "reparative therapy" doesn't work for everyone, not even all who desire it strongly. I have noticed over the years, however, how much sexual and other kinds of abuse there seems to have been in the histories of ex-gays whose stories I've heard or read, and that doesn't resonate with me as a gay man who was never sexually abused.)
In part, I'm trying to reemphasize what an earlier poster wrote about the power of words and the necessity of choosing our words (and the images they express) carefully, especially in our discussions of sensitive issues, where misstatements and misinterpretations can do great damage.
Further, I raise the example of Cohn to question what more, besides an attempt to "take over" (or strengthen their control of) the denomination by those who consider themselves more "faithful" to the tradition, might be at work behind this battle. For example, David Seamands, a pastor/theologian affiliated with Asbury Theological Seminary, recently apologized and is being disciplined for sexual misconduct. What other personal "battles" might be going on behind conservative doors that gets expressed openly in the battle against LGBT persons in the church?
And beyond that, I want to reiterate the question, as others have before me, of how it is that the church's and society's affirmation and support of same-sex marriage in our society is going to damage marriage as a whole. If some long-term same-sex partnerships have been successful in spite of societal pressures and the lack of support from church communities, how much more successful might they be if such affirmation and support were accorded them?! And how many more LGBT persons would choose that option over casual sexual encounters if it were a more readily accessible and fully supported option? I can only imagine.

[Dean Snyder]

Chris

In rsponse to your question about bisexuality, someone left comment on my old site. I found it helpful in understanding the situation of bisexual and transgender persons so I pass it on:

Jacinda said...

Just to clear up a few things:

The claim that bisexuals do not, by definition, practice lifelong monogamy is incorrect. If a person is bisexual, that does not mean ze is necessarily involved with multiple people of different genders. Rather, it means that ze is capable of having a loving, healthy, monogamous relationship with someone, and that the other person's gender is not important.

A lot of people don't understand what it means to be transgendered or transsexual. To explain this properly, I must point out the difference between sex and gender. Sex describes physical characteristics. Gender describes an innate sense of being a man or a woman or however else a person might describe hirself. When we're born, we are assigned a sex based on a doctor's evaluation of our physical traits. For most people, their assigned sex matches their gender identity. But for transsexuals, the sex assigned at birth does not fit their innate sense of gender. This isn't a case of being born one gender and "feeling like" the other -- a person has been whatever gender ze is all along; it's just hir physical characteristics that might not match that.

Neither nature nor God has made a mistake here. We may not understand why some people are born transsexual or transgendered, but we can respect that not everyone experiences gender in the same way. And we can trust that those who decide to physically transition are capable of making informed decisions about their bodies.

None of this makes anyone's sexual orientation less valid. People fall in love -- that's not a mistake of nature; it's part of who we are as people. Some of us fall in love with someone of the same gender. Some of us fall in love with someone of another gender. Regardless of anyone's gender, love is a blessing, not something to be feared or condemned.

[Revwilly]

If, as some say, homosexuality is a gift from God, would it be good if everyone were homosexual? The answer of course is no,for obvious reasons. Therefore, it must not be a gift from God because if it were it would be good for everyone to be that way.

[Rick Grazzini]

Dean,
I agree with the earlier post thanking you for your ability to engage. Nice job.

Others have addressed the primary issue(s) re Tooley, and admirably. Thanks to all.

I have a problem with the cost of the letter. Does anyone else gag at the idea that this is considered an appropriate way to spend $20,000? That's a lot of money to spend with the hope of just recovering the cost of the mailing. So what was the intent of the letter again?

Was there really no better way to use that money to the glory of God?

Rhetorical question. Think about what Dean's colleagues in Liberia could do with a gift of $20K.

[Chris]

Dean, thank you for taking my query seriously--even if in the process you quoted someone who did violence to the English language by using fabricated pronouns. ;-)

[John]

A lot of people don't understand what it means to be transgendered or transsexual. To explain this properly, I must point out the difference between sex and gender. Sex describes physical characteristics. Gender describes an innate sense of being a man or a woman or however else a person might describe hirself. When we're born, we are assigned a sex based on a doctor's evaluation of our physical traits. For most people, their assigned sex matches their gender identity. But for transsexuals, the sex assigned at birth does not fit their innate sense of gender.

Call me close-minded, but if slicing off your genitalia isn't a mental illness, then nothing else is.

My willingness to even entertain the notion that homosexuality is compatible with Christianity comes to a grinding halt when it is proposed that sexually mutilating yourself is a godly act.

[Douglas Asbury]

John,
If you've never read Virginia Ramey Mollenkott's book "Omnigender: A Trans-religious Approach," I'd encourage you to do so. It's a quick read, and what it tells about routine physician-mandated "genital mutilation" in order to make newborns' genitals correspond to society's ideas of gender will, I think, surprise you.

[John Wilks]

What is all the hub-bub about the term "exotic sexuality?"

"exotic" seems to me to be a very generous statement descriptor considering how must of us in the traditionalist camp view these issues.

Depending on who's stats are better, the GLBT community represents between 1-15% of the US population. So we are talking about sexual practices which are out of the norm for 85-99% of Americans.

Sushi is called exotic in this country because it is not yet a staple on the American diet.

Birds from latin America are called exotic pets because they are not near as common in houses as dogs and cats.

So how is exotic a negaitve term here?

I thought the whole world wanted we conservatives to stop describing homosexuality by such terms as "unnatural" or "deplorible." I thought those kind of terms were practically considered hate speech in these parts.

So for the sake of a civil discussion and to avoid insulting anyone, Tooley used the term "exotic" instead- a term which is at worst a value neutral term. I would think he should get a pat on the back for extending grace, civility, and respect.

[Douglas Asbury]

Thesaurus Entry Word: exotic
Function: adjective
Text: excitingly or mysteriously unusual
Synonyms fantastic, glamorous (also glamourous), marvelous (or marvellous), outlandish, romantic, strange
Related Words colorful, picturesque, quaint; alien, foreign; distant, faraway, remote; alluring, captivating, enchanting, fascinating
Dictionary Entry Word: exotic
1 : introduced from another country : not native to the place where found; 2 archaic : FOREIGN , ALIEN ; 3 : strikingly, excitingly, or mysteriously different or unusual; 4 : of or relating to striptease < exotic dancing>

Come on, John! Can you actually claim that conservative Mark Tooley writing to his conservative constituents in a letter that encourages them, among other things, to send money to his organization, is going to use a word like "exotic" as a "value neutral term"? Even you used the term "exotic" only in reference to neutral - or even pleasant - subjects - i.e. pets and food - and, in the process, ignored its long-time association with striptease, plus its appeal to people's xenophobia that rejects things "foreign" out of hand. We're not new to such word games as you and Tooley play. So don't insult us by playing innocent.

[John Wilks]

Douglas,

Given his opposition, what term should he use?

(Yes, I know you'd rather he just shut up and go away. But we are having a family dispute here and even we old fashioned fuddy-duddies get a voice.)

My point is that there are a great many terms which are far more derogatory and which are used with regularity by conservatives and traditionalists and Tooley opted out of those words.

And yes, for most people I know, sexuality as expressed in the GLBT community is foreign and different. Is that really such a shock to you?

If it is, then you are a tad out of touch with the rank-and-file in the heartland.

Bottom line, is Tooley trying to raise funds? Yes. Is he playing to his base? You bet. But is he trying to be intentionally offensive and use a pejorative term?

No. He is not. And if you doubt me, I challenge you to show me own scrap of evidence that we conservatives and traditionalists use "exotic sexuality" commonly (or even occasionally) as some kind of buzz word to show our displeasure at the GLBT community.

Look, I get that you don't like Tooley or IRD. Fine. But his use of the word "exotic" is about the tamest thing to come from IRD in a long while. And all this fuss over it sounds like a witch hunt to me.

[John]

Yeah, I don't know what the fuss about Tooley's use of the word "exotic" is all about. Isn't the Left aware that conservative Christians consider homosexual activity to be weird and sinful? I thought that we had been expressing that point of view of years, and quite clearly. It shouldn't be surprising at all.

[TERRY DUNN]

IS THERE APPEAL RIGHTS OVER A BISHOP OR A DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT ON DECISION TO ELECT CERTAIN PASTORS OF LOCAL CHURCHES. PLEASE TELL ME WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CLOSE A CHURCH. THANKS

[FREE MUSIC DOWNLOADS]

Yhanks you
6d1b25